In fact there are UN resolutions guaranteeing the right of refugees to return to their homes. Max Blumenthal challenged Amanpour “to cite one legally binding international resolution that prevents the Palestinian right of return. It is clear… she has no understanding of international law on refugees, no idea of Res 194.” He continues, by email:

Christine Amanpour claims “all international agreements” reject the Palestinian right of return to what is now Israel.” Yet there are none and she cannot state which ones she is referring to. She merely says “the parameters,” meaning the US-brokered outlines of a final deal that will never be. She apparently has never heard of Res 194 or international law. Significantly, Meshaal keeps saying he supports a state on ’67 lines, but Amanpour insists on playing Israel’s lawyer, declaring, “you know, everybody’s not going to be able to return to Israel. You know that.”

Israeli spokespeople have over-saturated American media outlets with factually inaccurate talking points that continue to go unchallenged by anchors and journalists…. What on earth is [Amanpour] talking about? She certainly isn’t talking about international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Israel is also a party to, and in which the right of return is enshrined. She can’t be talking about UN Resolution 194 and countless UN resolutions which have recalled it. In reality, there are no “international agreements” which negate the right of return and one of the most significant reasons why no conclusive peace agreements exist today is because Israel refuses a just solution to the refugee issue. Don’t wait on Christiane to tell you that though.

Here is the transcript of the Amanpour-Meshal dialogue:

AMANPOUR: It might be a reversed question, but it is still the question. All the international agreements about what a two-state solution should look like — and you’re talking about the Americans.

They agree as well, and the U.N. and Moscow and the E.U., that it has to involve Hamas, all parties, renouncing violence and accepting the right of Israel to exist. You keep telling me why not and who should recognize whom. But my question is, is there ever a circumstance under which you will recognize Israel’s right to exist?

MESHAAL (through translator): I will give you a reply, a direct reply and a lesson.

About the direct answer, I accept a Palestinian state according to 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return.

AMANPOUR: I know you say the right to return —

MESHAAL (through translator): When this stage rises —

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: — you know, everybody’s not going to be able to return to Israel. You know that.

MESHAAL (through translator): Please.

What? Say it again?

(Speaking foreign language).

AMANPOUR: Under the international agreements every Palestinian who’s living in the diaspora is not going to be able to come back to Israel.

MESHAAL (through translator): Who said that? Who said that?

AMANPOUR: That’s what are the parameters.

MESHAAL (through translator): I tell you, I accept —

AMANPOUR: They can come to the Palestinian state.

MESHAAL (through translator): I tell you, my sister, you are the CNN, a respected channel. Do a survey through the diaspora where the Palestinians are. If you don’t find a majority — a big majority that want to return to their land, then I’m wrong.

But…

AMANPOUR: No, they want to return to their land.

MESHAAL: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Of course.

MESHAAL: Yes.

AMANPOUR: The international agreements don’t provide for that.

MESHAAL: Why?

I ask you, why the international community is silent about the law, about the…

AMANPOUR: They’re not silent. They say that under the international agreement, the return should be…

MESHAAL: Allow me, please.

AMANPOUR: — linked to a Palestinian state, OK?

MESHAAL: I asked you a question.

AMANPOUR: So I — you know, here’s the thing…

MESHAAL: I asked you a question.

AMANPOUR: — the only thing I wanted to ask you…

MESHAAL: No, no, no.

AMANPOUR: — is are you keeping on making excuses for why you won’t recognize…

MESHAAL: I’m answering. I’m answering. Allow me to answer. I have given you a clear answer. I am — I want — I want my state. After this state is established, it — besides its standing toward Israel, don’t ask me when I’m in prison and under pressure, under Israeli pressure. You cannot ask me, as a victim, what is my stand toward Israel. I have mentioned my stand when there is a Palestinian state and the Palestinians are living like any other people in the world.

But you asked me about the right to return. I asked you a question and you have interrupted me — why the international community is silent about the law of the right to return for — that allows every Israelis to return and the people accept this. The world accepts this. And there are Jews who have never seen Palestine, while the Palestinian who was born on — in Palestine, or his grandfather or his father, and he doesn’t even have the (INAUDIBLE).

This one is not — not allowed, while the Jews are allowed — are allowed. This is double standard. And it’s time to stop.

I bet you’re right! of course you make the big bucks by doing and saying what the powerful want to hear.
People like to say “the cream rises to the top,” as if life was a jug of milk. But it’s actually a pond, and in a pond cream isn’t what rises to the top.

I’ve always found Amanpour to be INCREDIBLY patronising when interview Arabs or others who aren’t ‘establishment’ figures. I reckon she thinks (as do others) that because she was born in Iran, it somehow gives her some sort of credibility. Well, it doesn’t. Amanpour is the State Dept’s interviewer (look who she married, for god’s sake!) She would never, ever, speak to an Israeli the way she speaks to Arabs. And no matter who she’s interviewing, or what story she’s ‘covering’, it’s all about her, not about the story. Same with the all ‘celebrity’ journalists.

Exactly. Amanpour speaks to Arabs as though they’re naughty children, or, in the case of ‘good’ Arabs like Mahmoud Abbas, as though she were giving them a pat on the head for good behaviour. Certainly, she never considers them as serious politcians who might have a point of view worth listening to, whatever one thinks of it.

That is why she has no credibility as an interviewer – she talks AT her interlocoturs, and basically tells them what to think. A good interviewer will let the other party speak for themselves, challenging them when neccessary. Amanpour just interrupts and talks over anyone unfriendly to State Dept policy, while allowing Israelis and other ‘good’ folks an easy ride.

Whatever your views on Hamas…whether you see them as a terrorist group or not….you have to admit that Meshaal made some excellent points in this interview. He didn’t play into the American and Israeli positions like some other Palestinian leaders do during interviews by western media. He stuck to his position and his beliefs and I respect him for that.

As for Amanpour, 1) she gave the impression of being highly uninformed about the history of the conflict, 2) having no knowledge whatsoever of international policies and laws, and even less about binding UN-led policies regarding the occupation, 3) She’s full of herself…and probably thinks that she’s the Westernized Iranian Barabra Walters. In fact, I believe that she was more in love with the fact that she had Khaled Meshaal on the program, rather than the opportunity to really probe his mind and see what he had to say. Its so obvious that she did it just for the ratings. Hey, Gaza is a hot topic right now, isn’t it? She didn’t really care what he had to say, most of the time she was interrupting and talking over him, often raising her voice as if she was scolding a child. I’m inclined to think that she already made up her mind about Hamas, Meshaal, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict long before he stepped through the door and there was no way that was going to change.

As for Amanpour, 1) she gave the impression of being highly uninformed about the history of the conflict, 2) having no knowledge whatsoever of international policies and laws, and even less about binding UN-led policies regarding the occupation…

Which is outrageous given how much of her career she has spent covering this region and all the resources at her disposal. She is clearly well educated and prides herself on being informed, yet fails miserably in this regard.

But it doesn’t help to respond by invoking a right contained in a UN resolution that the Security Council is unwilling to enforce. Experts in the field have noted that “The more rights are advocated in the face of demonstrable nonperformance and no adoption of force, the more they turn into rites.” link to cup.columbia.edu

The representative of Israel, Abba Eban, stated that Israel had implemented the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) and promised that Israel would implement that resolution, together with resolution 194(III). The later provided for a conditional right of return (for those willing to live in peace) or the right to negotiate compensation for those refugees who do not wish to return.

The position of the UN organization is that Israel has a continuing legal obligation to fulfill those agreements, based upon the terms of Israel’s acceptance during the hearings on its application for membership in the UN. Both sides have also been ordered to negotiate a just settlement of the refugee problem by the Security Council. The UN is unconditionally bound to respect international law, so it cannot endorse any settlement that condones the illegal practice of forced population transfer or ethnic cleansing.

International law favors repatriation over resettlement in third countries. But in the case of territories divided by revolution or civil war, the right of return is not guaranteed. In Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey et al, decision of 1 March 2010, — ECHR 2010, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a petition based upon the right of return to occupied areas of northern Cyprus. The Court’s decision was based upon the passage of time, the arrival of new generations, and the lack of any remaining links to the territory. The Court instructed the Greek victims to present their claims to the compensation commissions of the de facto Turkish government.
* link to humanrightsdoctorate.blogspot.com
* link to web.archive.org

For example, UNGA 66/75 (along with many, many others) states clearly that Palestinian refugees “…are entitled to their property and to
the income derived therefrom…” I can’t see that any precedent set by European courts with respect to Greece and Turkey has any bearing on the right of the refugees to the property that they lost.

Hostage, I have a question..
You previously discussed the ICC rejecting Palestine’s bid for a tribunal.
I believe you said the General Prosecutor said in order to proceed the UN had to accept Palestine as a state.
So would Palestine being accepted by the GA instead of SC suffice?
There were some other problems also I think…. Israel not being a party to the Rome Statute …..so how does that affect a complaint by Palestine on Israel?
Also was mentioned the’ definition of a state.’ I looked up the Montevideo Convention that is supposedly used to define a state for the ICC purpose.link to oas.org
Article 1. the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c)government; d)capacity to enter into relations with other states.

So my last question is what would Palestine use for b) — to ‘define it’s territory”? Could it use the boundaries described in UN Res 181 separating Israel and Palestine as it’s defined territory?

“Could it use the boundaries described in UN Res 181 separating Israel and Palestine as it’s defined territory?”

They could claim more than specified in UNGA res 181. corpus separatum was never legally instituted, Jerusalem was never legally separated from the non-self-governing territories of Palestine. Reflected in UNSC res 476 they could also claim Jerusalem.

However, Abbas has in 2011 and again this year, in front of the world at the UN, generously offered to accept only 22% of its rightful territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel ignored the offer.

Hostage, I have a question..
You previously discussed the ICC rejecting Palestine’s bid for a tribunal.
I believe you said the General Prosecutor said in order to proceed the UN had to accept Palestine as a state.

No the former Prosecutor spent three years gathering opinions from legal scholars and the Israel Lobby only to claim that he felt that he was not empowered to determine if Palestine is a state. He said the decision was up to the UN Secretary General (who has already accepted 3 accessions to multilateral treaties from Palestine) or the ICC’s Assembly of State Parties (of which 70 have already formally recognized the State Palestine). Oddly enough he never asked the Secretary General for an opinion. He simply noted that in cases of doubt, the Secretary always consults the General Assembly’s resolution practice to determine if it has treated an entity as a State. That’s NOT actually required in the case of the members of UN specialized agencies, like UNESCO. The Secretary is required, by UN treaty agreements, to treat those entities as States.

In addition, the General Assembly’s resolution granting Palestine’s current observer privileges had already noted that Palestine was a full member of several international organizations that are only open to full membership by States, i.e. The Group of Asian States, the League of Arab States, The ESCWA, The Group of 77 and China, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, & etc.

So would Palestine being accepted by the GA instead of SC suffice?
Yes, UN Legal Affairs Section publishes a guide to the Secretary-General’s practice acting as a treaty depositary which explains, that in cases of doubt, he must review General Assembly resolutions for indications that the entity is a State. But it also has an entire subsection on the “Vienna formula” that the Prosecutor overlooked which explains that members of the UN specialized agencies must be considered States. See — The Summary of Practice of the Secretary‐General as Depositary of Multilateral Treaties, ST/LEG/7/Rev. 1 link to treaties.un.org

Israel not being a party to the Rome Statute …..so how does that affect a complaint by Palestine on Israel?

The Rome Statute does not require Israel’s consent before it can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by its citizens on the territories of other states. Palestine can only grant the ICC jurisdiction for crimes committed on its own territory since July of 2002. That would conceivably include any acts committed there by the mayor and officials of Jerusalem, the members of the IDF, the members of Israel’s regional councils, Israel’s Knesset or Cabinet members, & by officers of Israeli companies or contractors.

what would Palestine use for b) — to ‘define it’s territory”?

General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), “The Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations” reflects the applicable customary law and treaty obligations on the subject. It provides that:

Every State… has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.

Israel is a party to the 1949 Armistice agreements. There are still Chapter VII (Article 40) provisional measures that were put into effect by the UN Security Council that require the parties to the conflict to observe and implement those agreements pending a final settlement. See S/RES/73 (1949) link to unispal.un.org

The General Assembly has also addressed the issue in relevant resolutions which explain that the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 is the territory of the Palestinian people and that “the credentials of the delegation of Israel do not cover that territory”. See A/58/L.48, 15 December 2003; General Assembly 58/292, 17 May 2004.
*Note that the verbatim record of the General Assembly discussion of resolution 58/292 indicates the words “pre-1967 borders” had intentionally been adopted to replace the words “Armistice Line of 1949”. See A/58/PV.87

The ICJ’s legal analysis of the status of the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, also employed the armistice line as the legal boundary.

Hi Hostage” … in the case of territories divided by revolution or civil war … “

Is it applicable in this instance? The legal status of the territories involved in the I/P issue weren’t divided by revolution, civil war, annexation, agreement or under any law or convention.

The first division occurred when Israel was declared, recognized, accepted into the UN on 11 May 1949 as recognized. What remained of the non-self-governing territories of Palestine was by default not Israeli.

This is reflected in the 1949 Armistice Agreements (common): “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”

British recognition: “His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” Thus far, nothing has replaced them

Is it applicable in this instance? The legal status of the territories involved in the I/P issue weren’t divided by revolution, civil war, annexation, agreement or under any law or convention.

There was a civil war between the citizens of the Mandated State of Palestine from 29 November 1947 through 15 May 1948. The ICJ’s brief legal analysis of the subsequent status of the territory noted that a war erupted with the Arabs after Israel declared its independence and that resolution 181(II) was never implemented.

The General Assembly had been called back into special session by the Security Council when it referred the Question of Palestine back to that body. The Assembly in-turn appointed a Mediator and relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities for implementing the plan of partition contained in resolution 181 (II). All of that happened just before the mandate was set to expire. But by then a self-appointed government of Israel had already declared its own independence – long before the date established on the UN timetable for that purpose and without any sanction from the UN. See U.N. General Assembly Resolution 186 (S2) Appointment and terms of reference of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine; May 14, 1948, link to yale.edu

The Court noted that resolution 181(II) remains relevant as the source of the UN’s permanent responsibility for the Question of Palestine until it is legitimately resolved. Israel has claimed that: 1) resolution 181(II) is null and void; 2) Israel was created by its own act, not by the UN or an orderly succession and replacement of one state by another; and 3) that Israel did not inherit the debts or treaty obligations of the previous government of Palestine. The territory of Arab Palestine was legally annexed by the government of Jordan.

This is reflected in the 1949 Armistice Agreements (common): “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question”

Yes the Arabs insisted on the addition of that language, but it is a distinction without any meaningful difference. Under customary international law, permanent armistice lines of demarcation have the very same legal effects and consequences as political or territorial boundaries. The parties have treaty, customary, and UN Charter obligations that require them to implement and observe those lines of demarcation pending any possible alterations that might be made through a mutually agreed upon final settlement.

You are assuming that British doctrine on “sovereignty” is identical to the UN’s, but that is not the case. The UN Security Council and Mediator accepted the Armistice Agreements on behalf of all of the member states under the auspices of Chapter VII. Those agreements granted an Israeli/Jordanian mixed commission “exclusive jurisdiction” (that’s UN-speak for sovereignty) over the development of future plans for the government of Jerusalem and ordered the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to facilitate their implementation.

The ‘division’ of the non-self-governing territories of Palestine

No it’s just the “occupied territory” of the state of Jordan – which became the territory of the State of Palestine through the normal rules of state succession after the political union with Transjordan was dissolved and the PLO’s 1988 UDI came into effect. There were Palestinians in the Jordanian government, including Palestinian Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors, and Lawmakers. So they were a self-governing territory. In the Namibia case the Security Council and ICJ addressed the policy of divide and rule and Bantustanization by insisting on the exercise of the right of self-determination of the Namibian people “as a whole”. The Hashemite Kingdom never incorporated or represented all of the Palestinians living in refugee camps outside of Palestine.

The ICJ recognized that, from the outset of hostilities, the territory had been subject to the jurisdiction of a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, Jordan or the PLO acting on behalf of Palestine. It also noted that Israel had interfered with the right of the Palestinian people, including the refugees, to exercise their right of self-determination.

P.S. I forgot to mention that in the case of civil wars, the resulting internal displacement would be limited to the boundaries of the former state. It would not apply at all to situations where the territorial integrity of a third state, like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, & etc. was violated by a forced transfer across an international frontier.

Experts in the field have noted that “The more rights are advocated in the face of demonstrable nonperformance and no adoption of force, the more they turn into rites.”

is an universally applicable nugget of truth and/or foreknowledge on either side of the/an/any equation (assuming that the use of “rites” is a stab at pointing out deliberate institutionalized ineffectiveness, and not a legal term of art).

I’m sure that everyone here recognizes the dynamic, foreign and domestic, either side, but I’ve never seen it stated succinctly, that everyone can identify it as one of the principal rules of the power game. Thanks.

Experts in the field have noted that “The more rights are advocated in the face of demonstrable nonperformance and no adoption of force, the more they turn into rites.”

There is an old maxim that There is no such thing as a “right”, without a corresponding judicial remedy.

That’s why I keep returning to the subject of the need for the Palestinian Solidarity movement to finally stop talking about international law, illegal settlements, and apartheid, and start applying political pressure to governments and the International Criminal Court to take appropriate action against the responsible Israeli officials for the flagrant crimes that they’re committing on a daily basis in Palestinian territory.

It’s pointless to fall into the trap of debating the 1 state solution versus the 2 state solution in the abstract, when in reality Palestinians cannot waive an available judicial remedy, without loosing their corresponding rights. They simply turn into “rites” if we permit that to happen.

The BDS Movement came into existence in 2005 because the US frustrated efforts to enforce the ICJ Advisory Opinion. It was pointless to pin our hopes on the Goldstone report, while ignoring the complaint the Palestinian government had filed directly with the Court in the Hague. Instead of throwing shoes at pictures of Abbas, we should have protested against the three year delay and foot-dragging by the Court in the Hague.

The ICC is not a UN organ. It doesn’t need US or Israeli permission to act on crimes that fall within the scope of its jurisdiction. It has its own legal personality and the members have empowered it to enter into special agreements to exercise its jurisdiction on the territory of “any state”. 70 of the 121 member states have formally recognized the State of Palestine as a state with corresponding legal rights that are reflected in treaties on a wide variety of subjects, including diplomatic immunity and extradition. It has no other choice, but to recognize Palestine as a “third state” under the terms of Article 98 of its own statute – unless of course Palestine has waived those rights by filing its own declaration under the terms of Article 12(3). The exercise of those rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Israel rejects TWO returns: of Palestinians to pre-1967 Israel and of settlers, ditto. After all, what’s mine is mine and what’s yours may also be mine. That’s what POWER says, and let God or someone else administer and enforce International Law and agreements. (The USA will not permit the UNSC to do it.) It appears that God is not interested, having his great project of GLOBAL WARMING to attend to,

Amanpour is condescending and underestimates Palestinians’ knowledge of their legal rights. She tries to trick Meshaal into believing that she knows more and he should surrender Palestinian rights and aspirations on international t.v.. I have zero respect left for her.

Fail. Nothing ironic about it, if you bother to understand why, instead of making empty-headed assertions. Clue: it may have not gone far enough in the Arab states’ opinion in asserting the rights of Palestinians. Therefore nothing contradictory or amusing about the fact that they supported the Palestinians in wanting a more robust declaration. Israeli supporters quoting the UN is always amusing and ironic, in view of their constant denigration of the institution, refusal to accept their resolutions and reports, and not least their bloodthirsty murders of their representatives over the years, one of which was the murder of UN Envoy Folke Bernadotte by Yitzhak Shamir’s Zionist Lehi mob which is mentioned in the report and was partly a reason for its being drawn up.

An additional reason that this point is irrelevant is that 194 is re-affirmed by the General Assembly every year, and every year the Arab countries vote for it.

For example, on January 12, 2012, UNGA 66/75 recalled “its resolutions 194 (III) of 11 December 1948 and 36/146 C of 16 December 1981 and all its subsequent resolutions on the question,” expressed “its appreciation for the preservation and modernization of the existing records, including the land records, of the Conciliation Commission, and stress[ed] the importance of such records for a just resolution of the plight of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III),” and reaffirmed “that the Palestine refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of equity and
justice”.

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Contrary to Arab claims, this clause does NOT guarantee a Right of Return of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel. Nor does it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab. Instead, Resolution 194 recommended that refugees be allowed to return to their homeland if they met two important conditions; it is very dubious indeed that these conditions could be fulfilled today 64 years after this resolution was created.
In particular note these clauses:
1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbours (the intractability of this conflict suggests this to be impossible at present).
2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.” (nothing is practicable without a peace agreement in place).

First of all, it is not only an “Arab claim” that 194 guarantees a right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees. It is the position of much of the rest of the world, reiterated by the resolution(s) I already cited.

Importantly, Israel was reminded by the General Assembly of its obligations under resolutions 181 and 194 at the time of its admission to the UN. (See UNGA 273.) Resolution 181 included provisions for minority rights within the Jewish state and the Arab state described therein. By not allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, Israel has violated those provisions since its founding. You quoted the relevant portion of 194. Citing these resolutions to Israel at the moment of its admission to the UN was an extraordinary measure, and it was the world’s way of letting Israel know that it expected Israel to live up to its obligations to the refugees.

The condition that returning refugees be willing to live at peace with their neighbors is not something that can be invoked to deny the rights of a refugee unless there is specific evidence that the refugee in question has intents that are opposed to peace. Innocent until proven guilty, as in any question of law that touches on individual rights.

>> 1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbours (the intractability of this conflict suggests this to be impossible at present).

So…because Israel is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state, Palestinians who would be willing to live in peace with their neighbours in a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israeli state are prevented from returning to Israel. That’s mighty convenient.

>> 2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.” (nothing is practicable without a peace agreement in place).

So…because Israel refuses to halt its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and because it refuses to dismantle its settlements and withdraw to within its declared 1948 borders – or even to within proposed 1967 borders; and because it refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace, the “earliest practicable date” is postponed indefinitely. That’s also mighty convenient.

“Contrary to Arab claims, this clause does NOT guarantee a Right of Return of Palestinian Arab refugees to return to Israel.”

Correct. Only the country of return can make such a guarantee. Germany has and it allows the ‘return’ of lineal descendants. Basic RoR doesn’t include lineal descendants, they must have lived in the region of return. One wonders at whose insistence Germany passed its legislation and on what legal precepts they based their lobbying? Nothing like yours at a guess.

“Nor does it specifically mention Arab refugees, thereby indicating that the resolution was aimed at all refugees, both Jewish and Arab”

Correct. BTW UNRWA was set up to also cater for Jewish refugees from Palestine. Made redundant by the fact of those refugees becoming citizens of Israel, no longer refugees (7. b)

“1. That they be willing to live in peace with their neighbours (the intractability of this conflict suggests this to be impossible at present).
2. That the return takes place “at the earliest practicable date.” (nothing is practicable without a peace agreement in place)”

Ah, what a delectable piece of stupidity trying to glisten in the muck. Think about it. If they returned, they’d be ISRAELIS living in Israel and their neighbour would be Palestine. A peace agreement would be between Israel and Palestine, not Israel and Israel. Israeli demands and the Hasbara excuses for them really are for the brain dead.

BTW can you reconcile this appeal to the Arab minority, “WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. “ with driving them out at the same time? Or with this gem “To repatriate those who had fled would be, in the words of Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, ”suicidal folly.“ ”

They were a minority. I guess logic wasn’t his strong point

“(the intractability of this conflict suggests this to be impossible at present)”

Finally, it is every civilian’s right to flee violence, no matter who tells them to flee or why. Because they’re civilians. Civilians who might not have voted for the power who was responsible for the violence. For example, did the Palestinians vote for the parties in power in any of the states involved in the 1948 war? And how many Israeli citizens voted for the Provisional Israel Government that took Israel way beyond its borders for the last 64 years?

By the way, 66/75 was passed by a vote of 165 for, 7 against, and 2 abstentions. Voting against were the USA, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, and Palau. Abstaining were Cameroon and Vanuatu. Everyone else (the overwhelming majority of the world) voted for.

alas, unless global warming is reversed vanuatu won’t be around much longer to dutifully (in exchange for $$) follow the u.s. lead on unga 66/75 & related u.n resolutions. not sure about the other south pacific islands, but probably they’ll go the way of vanuatu too.

“unless global warming is reversed vanuatu won’t be around much longer”

According to the UK Met Office, Global warming stopped about 16 years ago, and in the last couple of years the Earth has cooled a fraction. If Vanuatu is sinking, it is hardly likely to be stopped by “reversing global warming”.

Hamas leader Meshal exposed BiBi [ the grand old Duke of York] when he said two days ago ” if you wanted to launch it [ground war] you would have done it” Altogether… Oh the grand old Duke of York he had 75000 men, he marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again.

Resolution 194 was drafted at the time when the partitioning of the Palestine Mandate into two separate states was meant to occur. The logical place for displaced Palestinians to return to would be the still-to-be-proclaimed state of Palestine and NOT Israel.

@eljay, we live in the real world. Not some kind of idealized one where Zionists (they are people after all) have finally been exterminated.
Sadly you don’t realize that most of us would like to see some kind of solution to this infernal conflict, so we have to be pragmatic, therefore ROR won’t happen.

Mayhem, your comment assumes that the pragmatism that would allow us to find “some kind of solution to this infernal conflict” would prevent ROR from happening. I cannot see any validity for this assumption.

Israel clearly has the capacity to repatriate Palestinian refugees if it chooses. The reason that it is trying to attract olim while denying the right of Palestinians to turn their homes has always been that it practices racial discrimination.

To allow refugees who wish to return home to rebuild their lives within Israel, as a part of Israeli society, is more than feasible. The only way to declare that this assumption is not pragmatic is to assume that the only pragmatic solutions possible put racial discrimination above individual rights and international law.

Yes, what was ever really pragmatic about Truman’s recognition of Israel other than if Truman did not do it, Dewey would? And what’s pragmatic about any current or future Jew ever born has the right to residence and land in Israel while the natives do not have such a right now even as to the those robbed of their land still living, not even to mention their actual spawn? Anyone’s ROR or Dispossession depends on whatever constellation of military and economic power exists at the time. Examples, Israeli dispossession of natives, Allied transfer of German ethnics at same time.

>> @eljay, we live in the real world. Not some kind of idealized one where Zionists (they are people after all) have finally been exterminated.

Is that your idea of an idealized world? It sure isn’t mine.

>> Sadly you don’t realize that most of us would like to see some kind of solution to this infernal conflict …

Stupidly you don’t realize that I would very much like to see a solution to this conflict. The difference between us is that I would like to see a just and mutually-beneficial solution, one that involves justice, equality, accountability and morality; while you are content to see “some kind of solution” whereby:
– Israel remains an oppressive and supremacist state; and
– Israel retains most of its ill-gotten gains;
– no Israeli is held responsible or accountable for anything.

>> … so we have to be pragmatic, therefore ROR won’t happen.

And we all know that, “logically”, the most pragmatic way to resolve a conflict between an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state and its victims is for the supremacist state to simply continue with its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder; and to refuse to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

Sadly you don’t realize that most of us would like to see some kind of solution to this infernal conflict, so we have to be pragmatic, therefore ROR won’t happen.

There are major issues to be resolved before ROR is even addressed and they won’t happen either because Israel is a criminal and fascist state that cannot change direction from it’s current trajectory.

“The logical place for displaced Palestinians to return to would be the still-to-be-proclaimed state of Palestine and NOT Israel.”

States have nothing to do with it. The right to return is the moral right to return to the homes they were driven from. If those homes were in the territory that is now Israel, then the right is to return to that part of Israel.

talknic, you wrote,
:based on the human values of the majority of the world’s nations.” Sadly the majority of the world’s nations do not find human values dear. But what is one to think of the body such as the UN when Libya and Syria have sat on the Council of Human Rights? What you are suggesting is that states such as Iran and The Congo share the same concept of “Human Rights” with the United States and Canada. Absurd.

No it isn’t. Treaty obligations, like the obligation to repatriate inhabitants after an armed conflict in accordance with Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention, simply reflect unwritten customary law. The evidence of that body of law is state practice and “opinion juris”, a shared sense that a compelling moral and legal obligation exists.

For example, in United States v Percheman (1832) arguments based on conquest were rejected:

The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

Ironically, just as the laws concerning “crimes against humanity” and “forced population transfer” were affirmed after the Holocaust, the laws of nations in the modern era concerning private property rights had been affirmed by Edmund Burke in Parliament after the property rights of the Jews of St. Eustatius had been violated in the aftermath of the British conquest.

The laws that protect Jews, like Percheman, must surely work in favor of Palestinians too.

The resolution used the term final “settlement” and did not establish a completely unqualified right of return. A good faith interpretation requires as a minimum a clear relinquishment of any belligerent rights on the part of the repatriated individuals as a condition of return.

The General Assembly established a new subsidiary organ, the PCC, charged with facilitating 1) repatriation; 2) resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees; and 3) the payment of compensation.

People who are repatriated are no longer refugees. Any arrangement regarding compensation for citizens is a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State. People who are resettled elsewhere and provided with economic and social rehabilitation are still considered refugees. Any arrangement for compensation of refugees is essentially an international matter that has to be addressed in a settlement.

Resolution 194 (III) does not address the subject of subsequent generations. While they remain refugees and are entitled to opt for resettlement and compensation, it isn’t clear if family unification remains a determining factor for purposes of right of return after displaced parents have passed away or in cases where no other close family members remain in Palestine.

International law favors repatriation over resettlement in third countries. But in the case of territories divided by revolution or civil war, the right of return is not guaranteed.

. Resolution194 contains an algorithm with conditional branches. The first sieve in the algorithm limits the RoR to non-belligerents willing to live in peace with their neighbors. It makes the final decision to either opt for return or payment of compensation a matter of private discretion that is not in the hands of the state parties.

FYI, 972 Magazine ran an article which said that polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research indicated 90 percent of the refugees preferred compensation in lieu of the right of return to Israel.

I also think that is what Israel is waiting for Roha. Problem is: the youngest 1948 refugees are 64 – some will live on for another 35 or 40 years. I can’t see Israel lasting that long – I think there will be 1948 refugees returning to Palestine in our lives.

Even if they don’t, that will be a hollow, petty victory for zionists. After almost succeeding in exterminating the Palestinian identity during Al Nakba, it has come roaring back post-1967, and the majority of the world’s nations now side with Palestine. Palestine is not going away, and Israel is slowly imploding. The question is not will, but when, will Israel cease to exist.

This is a pipe dream. Israel is around to stay. Get used to it. A majority of the world’s nations may “side with” Palestine, but very few of them (and none with real influence) want the Jewish state to cease to exist.

The only way that Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state is if it annexes the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, thus reducing the percentage of its Jewish population to a minority.

The only way that Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state is if it annexes the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, thus reducing the percentage of its Jewish population to a minority.

Israel would continue to exist, it just wouldn’t be a “Jewish democracy ” any more. Many are already starting to question if there is any need for a Jewish State, and when most agree there isn’t, then it will likely cease to exist as one.

No! The thing that distinguishes the case of the Palestinians from many others are the declarations and undertakings made by the representatives of the government of Israel. They swore that they would implement the rights guaranteed by UN resolutions 181(II) and 194(III) during the hearings on Israel’s membership in the United Nations. Israel remains bound by the terms of its own acceptance – and in civil or international law agreements must be kept (Pacta sunt servanda).

Most refugees were not born in Israel and have never lived there. Even the ones who were originally from what is now considered Israel have a perfect right to opt-out of returning there under the explicit terms of UN General Assembly resolution 194(III) regarding compensation in lieu of return.

Actual surveys of Palestinian refugees are rare, but the few that have been conducted indicate that 9 in 10 want compensation and have no desire to live among Zionists in Israel. link to 972mag.com

The current PA officials have stated that all of the refugees will have the option of citizenship and taking-up residency in the new Palestinian state. For example, the current President of the State of Palestine was born in Safed, beyond the borders that he, himself has proposed for the new state of Palestine.

“what do you want to doooooooo?” (repeated incessantly, and annoyingly)

amanpour- he wants justice, how many times does he have to say it?
[based on clear international law, UN sec council resolutions, simple morality, and even agreements from the nascent israeli state]

amanpour would apparently be asking this question of every freedom fighter in history, when up against a seemingly unbeatable oppressor. i can picture her asking this of ghandi, and martin luther king, and countless others. she just does not get that some principled people do not accept an overwhelming power imbalance as a seal on their fate…. might makes right for this shallow, small minded “reporter”.

Perhaps the most bizarre point in all of this is that Israel and it’s expansionist colonial supporters are all for dismissing and or circumventing the UN Charter, Laws & conventions, all of which were written in large part because of what happened to our Jewish fellows under the Nazi regime.

Obviously, she’s been given ‘the talk’ in which the facts of life were explained to her. Now they’ll have to have the ‘second talk,’ in which they remind her not to go too far. It’s all a matter of nuance. You can’t be too screamingly racist, too insulting or too obviously patronizing toward Palestinians–that might suggest defensiveness, which in turn suggest the fundamental malignancy of the American and Israeli positions. The ambitious media professional has to be a bit more subtle when invoking the West’s irritation toward the Palestinians, whose ultimate crime is that they simply don’t know their place. I’m sure Ms. Amanpour will understand the constraints involved, since it involves her career. At the end of the day, broadcast news is all about empire, celebrity culture in the service of political murder.

The ROR is a moral right. However, an actual naturalization of millions of Palestinians in the state of Israel would be equally immoral and destructive towards the current residents of the land. It is ALMOST analogues to contemporary Spain having to absorb 45 million jews. “Almost” – not because of the numbers but because more years have passed since the jews were expelled from Spain than the years passed since palestinians were expelled from their land.
A reasonable and moral compromise would be that the state of Israel settle a certain amount of Palestinians within its borders and compensate the other. That is, unless you care more about punishing israelis than actually solving this conflict in the maximum utilitarian way.

A reasonable and moral compromise would be that the state of Israel settle a certain amount of Palestinians within its borders and compensate the other. That is, unless you care more about punishing israelis than actually solving this conflict in the maximum utilitarian way.

Well simple equity would require that Israel at least repatriate or resettle one Palestinian refugee in Israel for every settler it wants to remain beyond the Green Line in any final settlement, unless of course it doesn’t want to actually solve the conflict.

Well simple equity would require that Israel at least repatriate or resettle one Palestinian refugee in Israel for every settler it wants to remain beyond the Green Line in any final settlement, unless of course it doesn’t want to actually solve the conflict.
Agree.

“Well simple equity would require that Israel at least repatriate or resettle one Palestinian refugee in Israel for every settler it wants to remain beyond the Green Line in any final settlement, unless of course it doesn’t want to actually solve the conflict.”

?!
Well, I don’t think this is right or fair. Palestinian refugees have a right to return to a land they were kicked out from 64 years ago. Settlers migrated voluntarily from Brooklyn and elsewhere!

I didn’t say that Palestinian claims were limited to simple equity. Despite sweeping generalizations about Brooklyn, several thousand Jewish refugees were evicted from the territory of the new Arab State of Jordan in 1948. That included the inhabitants of the Etzion block. Simple equity and resolution 194(III) guarantee their right of return too.

Is there a difference between the moral right of Jews to return to Spain, and the right of Palestinians to return to (What is now) Israel? And what is the moral right of American Jews to return to (What is now) Israel? And how do these respective claims of right stem from a universal principle of equal and just nature?

Is there a difference between the moral right of Jews to return to Spain, and the right of Palestinians to return to (What is now) Israel?

As I said, the only difference is the number of years which passed. As years go by, the number of living people who were directly affected by the Nakba diminishes and with it the moral validity of the claim to return.
I empathize with their pain, their anger and their frustration.
But instead of stubbornly demanding that ALL refugees and their descendants be entitled to return, the palestinians should insist that Israel recognize its moral debt to the refugees and discuss ways to compensate.
Also, I think that BDS will gain more popular support worldwide if it stresses its demand from Israel to retreat from the OT and less demand on the ROR.

As years go by, the number of living people who were directly affected by the Nakba diminishes and with it the moral validity of the claim to return.

And that is what Israel is banking on. Once the last surviving refugee dies, they’ll claim that they are sorry, but it’s too late to do anything about it. What makes me laugh, as Miko Peled pointed out, is that the Palestinians are supposed to forgot history and move on, while Jews are still holding a grudge over what the Pharoh did to them 5,000 years ago – never mind the Romans.

What makes me laugh, as Miko Peled pointed out, is that the Palestinians are supposed to forgot history and move on, while Jews are still holding a grudge over what the Pharoh did to them 5,000 years ago – never mind the Romans.

an actual naturalization of millions of Palestinians in the state of Israel would be equally immoral and destructive towards the current residents of the land.

No, you’re confusing morality with privilege. It might create a little over crowding and challenge the Jewish majority demographic, but that’s based on racism anyway. Only the most extreme right in America would suggest it is immoral that hispanics will overtake the white population at some point.

A reasonable and moral compromise would be that the state of Israel settle a certain amount of Palestinians within its borders and compensate the other.

That is what the Arab Peace Initiative proposes, but Israel rejected it.

“naturalization of millions of Palestinians in the state of Israel would be equally immoral and destructive towards the current residents of the land…”
The owners of the country don’t need any “naturalization”. The “current residents” have no “naturalization”; their presence is illegal, as they were smuggled in, with absolutely no connection to the country, against the refusal by the owners of the country.
“contemporary Spain having to absorb 45 million jews…” Spanish legislation is miles ahead of the “Israelian” barbary. It disposes for accelerated citizenship for the Nth generation descendants of Sefardís. Also consider that at the time of Isabel the Catholic, there was no international law concerning anything.

“unless you care more about punishing israelis than actually solving this conflict in the maximum utilitarian way.”
You cannot solve anything if you don’t first fully affirm the rights. Justice can be done with compromises, but they must clearly be understood to be compromises, i.e. reducing one’s claims to give in to appease the bully.

The owners of the country don’t need any “naturalization”. The “current residents” have no “naturalization”;
We live in a world which is made of nation states. Unfortunately for you, Israel exists and so are its citizens. Deal with it.

their presence is illegal, as they were smuggled in
False generalizations. Some smuggled in but most of them legally immigrated to an area which was part of the ottoman empire.

, with absolutely no connection to the country, against the refusal by the owners of the country.”
Wrong again. Most of them had generations lasting connection to the land. Check their prayer books.

“Unfortunately for you, Israel exists and so are its citizens. Deal with it”

Unfortunately Israel is trying to exist outside the extent of its recognized sovereign extent, endangering its citizens there. Idiots for Israel can never deal with it. They must resort to propaganda, lies, deceit and bullsh*te. Oh …. and blaming the victim.

Strange isn’t it, they’re the same symptoms presented in pathological and serial abusers.

“Idiots for Israel can never deal with it. They must resort to propaganda, lies, deceit and bullsh*te. Oh …. and blaming the victim.”

It’s part of the narcissism that you find on that side of the issue. Here you have a situation where the mainstream Zionists (let alone the rightwingers) never recognized the rights of Palestinians to their own land. Their basic human rights are nothing more than privileges to be granted or removed depending on whether Israel thinks they deserve them. Allowing them to retain most of 22 percent of their land is a “generous offer”. Yet they are constantly bombarded with the demand that they recognize Israel’s right to exist, or even Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, thereby demanding that Palestinians endorse their own expulsion. It’s narcissism everywhere you look . Israel establishes a “buffer zone” where Gazans are likely to be shot–the buffer zone is not inside Israel’s borders, but inside Gaza’s. They award themselves the right to kill Palestinian civilians inside Gaza if they find them in that zone, yet all we hear about from the MSM is the storyline that it is rocket fire from Gaza that triggers Israeli violence. It’s really remarkable. And nobody in the MSM ever points this out.

>> Most of them had generations lasting connection to the land. Check their prayer books.

Prayer book “connections” are as valid as travel brochure “connections”, and neither one entitles a person to steal and colonize land, ethnically cleanse the inhabitants of that land – the ones with real connections to it – and set up an oppressive and supremacist state.

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.

Subscription Options:

Weekly Daily Both

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.